5 ms·

You are mistaken. The lawsuit itself is clearly referring to dynamic memory allocation. It refers to "static or dynamic ram" to mean RAM in general, but the par

You are mistaken. The lawsuit itself is clearly referring to dynamic memory allocation. It refers to "static or dynamic ram" to mean RAM in general, but the paragraph has nothing to do with the characteristics of SRAM vs DRAM. From page 6 of the lawsuit [0]: > in fixed function implementations all possible functional requirements of the necessary data processing must be implemented on the silicon regardless of the final application of the device or the nature of the data to be processed. > Therefore, if a fixed function device must adaptively process data, then it must commit silicon resources to process all possible flavors of the data. > The inventors therefore sought to provide a new apparatus for implementing systems on a chip that will enable the user to achieve performance of fixed-function implementation at a lower cost. > The lower cost is achieved by removing redundancy from the system. The redundancy is removed by re-using groups of computational and storage elements in different configurations. > The cost is further reduced by employing only static or dynamic ram as a means for holding the state of the system. > All of this reconfiguration can take place dynamically in run-time without any degradation of performance over fixed-function implementations. > The present invention is therefore an apparatus for adaptively dynamically reconfiguring groups of computations and storage elements in run-time to process multiple separate streams of data and control at varying rates. As you can see, it's saying that rather than pinning RAM (as previous fixed-function approaches did in the 80s), this system allows you to request memory dynamically. I mean, it's a garbage patent anyway and not really worth so much time trying to analyze what they are claiming, but Nathan isn't wrong - the patent really isn't referring to SRAM and DRAM. [0] https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/home_page_posts/3/9/1/7/Altair_v._Sparkfun_Complaint.pdf https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/home_page_posts/3/9/1/7/Alta...

ohazi 5y ago
The lawsuit is decidedly not referring to dynamic memory allocation. There's no way to "request" a runtime-specified amount of memory dynamically here. The memory in question is a tiny, fixed-size block of RAM inside the chip that's directly connected to the various logic blocks. There is no way to allocate or request anything -- that memory is all you've got, and all of the bits have been spoken for by the time the chip is taped out. What they seem to be describing is something resembling a C union mapped directly onto that RAM block. That's not dynamic allocation, that's "these bits are interpreted differently depending on which logic blocks are active, so that we don't have to have a separate RAM block for each functional unit, because that would be a waste of space." Every legal combination and order of configuration structures in this RAM block is specified and tested, that's why it's not dynamic allocation. If anything, it's a really big list of possible static allocations. I agree with you that the SRAM/DRAM distinction is immaterial, but that's just how patents are written. But of course, all this is a complete tangent. Nothing that SparkFun makes has anything to do with any of this.
- nickysielicki 5y ago
  What chance does our legal system have of gauging the validity of these patents when we can't even get a forum of technical people, with no horse in the race, to agree on what these things mean?
  - simondotau 5y ago
    In a reasonable world, benefit of the doubt shouldn't be given to the patent holder when there is genuine confusion. It should be incumbent upon the filer to describe their invention in a way that is clear to experts in that relevant field. Sadly I suspect the world we live in isn't so reasonable.
    - URSpider94 5y ago
      The patent holder didn't receive their patent by accident. It was reviewed by an examiner in the patent office. Patent examiners are skilled technical researchers who are trained to comprehend the matter they are examining. Once a patent has been granted, indeed, there is benefit of the doubt that the patent is valid. However - when it comes to whether the patent applies to a given invention, that's a matter of debate in a courtroom.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        That’s certainly a good description of how the patent registration process is designed to work. Unfortunately reality, as represented by the broad proliferation of exceedingly moronic patents, begs to differ.
      - sircastor 5y ago
        In think you are grossly overestimating the effort and expertise being applied in patent approval. Or more specifically, I think you’re overestimating the expertise of the examiner in the relevant field.
      - chris_wot 5y ago
        Patent examiners seem to grant all sorts of crap that is prior art. I have very little faith in them. Edit: removed example, it was wrong.
jhgb 5y ago
> As you can see, it's saying that rather than pinning RAM (as previous fixed-function approaches did in the 80s), this system allows you to request memory dynamically I must have missed the "as you can see" part since I see nothing in the quoted passages that would contradict the notion of a device configured by the contents of some SRAM or DRAM cells. At the very best one could say that the text might be ambiguous. After all, "cost is further reduced by employing only static or dynamic ram as a means for holding the state of the system" is a statement that you could easily make about a bog-standard von Neumann computer as well.
tsimionescu 5y ago
No, you are obviously wrong here. Even the wording of the lawsuit is extremely clear: "The cost is further reduced by employing only static or dynamic ram as a means for holding the state of the system." - that is, they only use S/D RAM for holding the state of the system, no other kind of memory. I have no idea how you can misread this to think it refers to requesting memory dynamically - they explicitly say "static or dynamic ram" - they claim the system can work with static RAM just as well as dynamic RAM. How do you or SparkFun come up thinking they are saying dynamic RAM is better?
- smaudet 5y ago
  You are cherry picking: "The ‘434 patent refers to the aggregate of the dynamically reconfigurable computational and storage elements as a “media processing unit.” They are broadly talking about loading things in RAM. If there is a more specific purpose, its not mentioned here. I.e. there is no special purpose chip here which happens to be embedded in some other special purpose device, it honestly sounds like some engineer wrote a driver that could live in RAM and they tried to patent that. It then specifically goes on talk about it being a thing at runtime, not some pre-soldered state, i.e. software, so yes, malloc. Utterly ridiculous.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  Requesting memory “dynamically” has nothing to do with “dynamic’ in ‘dynamic memory”. Requesting dynamically means that RAM is allocated while a program is running, not at compile or simply launch time. That is a software consideration. Dynamic RAM means memory that requires refreshes to maintain the information it stores. A completely unrelated hardware concern. The word dynamic simply means something that happens in time so is used in a myriad of otherwise quite different computing concepts.
  - mirker 5y ago
    I’d just like to add that “Dynamic Programming” is one example of word fluff. “Dynamic” is somewhat of an ambiguous marketing buzzword, unfortunately.
  - 5y ago

ohazi 5y ago

The lawsuit is decidedly not referring to dynamic memory allocation. There's no way to "request" a runtime-specified amount of memory dynamically here. The memory in question is a tiny, fixed-size block of RAM inside the chip that's directly connected to the various logic blocks. There is no way to allocate or request anything -- that memory is all you've got, and all of the bits have been spoken for by the time the chip is taped out. What they seem to be describing is something resembling a C union mapped directly onto that RAM block. That's not dynamic allocation, that's "these bits are interpreted differently depending on which logic blocks are active, so that we don't have to have a separate RAM block for each functional unit, because that would be a waste of space." Every legal combination and order of configuration structures in this RAM block is specified and tested, that's why it's not dynamic allocation. If anything, it's a really big list of possible static allocations. I agree with you that the SRAM/DRAM distinction is immaterial, but that's just how patents are written. But of course, all this is a complete tangent. Nothing that SparkFun makes has anything to do with any of this.

nickysielicki 5y ago
What chance does our legal system have of gauging the validity of these patents when we can't even get a forum of technical people, with no horse in the race, to agree on what these things mean?
- simondotau 5y ago
  In a reasonable world, benefit of the doubt shouldn't be given to the patent holder when there is genuine confusion. It should be incumbent upon the filer to describe their invention in a way that is clear to experts in that relevant field. Sadly I suspect the world we live in isn't so reasonable.
  - URSpider94 5y ago
    The patent holder didn't receive their patent by accident. It was reviewed by an examiner in the patent office. Patent examiners are skilled technical researchers who are trained to comprehend the matter they are examining. Once a patent has been granted, indeed, there is benefit of the doubt that the patent is valid. However - when it comes to whether the patent applies to a given invention, that's a matter of debate in a courtroom.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      That’s certainly a good description of how the patent registration process is designed to work. Unfortunately reality, as represented by the broad proliferation of exceedingly moronic patents, begs to differ.
    - sircastor 5y ago
      In think you are grossly overestimating the effort and expertise being applied in patent approval. Or more specifically, I think you’re overestimating the expertise of the examiner in the relevant field.
    - chris_wot 5y ago
      Patent examiners seem to grant all sorts of crap that is prior art. I have very little faith in them. Edit: removed example, it was wrong.

jhgb 5y ago

> As you can see, it's saying that rather than pinning RAM (as previous fixed-function approaches did in the 80s), this system allows you to request memory dynamically I must have missed the "as you can see" part since I see nothing in the quoted passages that would contradict the notion of a device configured by the contents of some SRAM or DRAM cells. At the very best one could say that the text might be ambiguous. After all, "cost is further reduced by employing only static or dynamic ram as a means for holding the state of the system" is a statement that you could easily make about a bog-standard von Neumann computer as well.

tsimionescu 5y ago

No, you are obviously wrong here. Even the wording of the lawsuit is extremely clear: "The cost is further reduced by employing only static or dynamic ram as a means for holding the state of the system." - that is, they only use S/D RAM for holding the state of the system, no other kind of memory. I have no idea how you can misread this to think it refers to requesting memory dynamically - they explicitly say "static or dynamic ram" - they claim the system can work with static RAM just as well as dynamic RAM. How do you or SparkFun come up thinking they are saying dynamic RAM is better?

smaudet 5y ago
You are cherry picking: "The ‘434 patent refers to the aggregate of the dynamically reconfigurable computational and storage elements as a “media processing unit.” They are broadly talking about loading things in RAM. If there is a more specific purpose, its not mentioned here. I.e. there is no special purpose chip here which happens to be embedded in some other special purpose device, it honestly sounds like some engineer wrote a driver that could live in RAM and they tried to patent that. It then specifically goes on talk about it being a thing at runtime, not some pre-soldered state, i.e. software, so yes, malloc. Utterly ridiculous.
Nevermark 5y ago
Requesting memory “dynamically” has nothing to do with “dynamic’ in ‘dynamic memory”. Requesting dynamically means that RAM is allocated while a program is running, not at compile or simply launch time. That is a software consideration. Dynamic RAM means memory that requires refreshes to maintain the information it stores. A completely unrelated hardware concern. The word dynamic simply means something that happens in time so is used in a myriad of otherwise quite different computing concepts.
- mirker 5y ago
  I’d just like to add that “Dynamic Programming” is one example of word fluff. “Dynamic” is somewhat of an ambiguous marketing buzzword, unfortunately.
- 5y ago